Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the specific fields returned and an auth requirement ('Cotlet API key with access to this app'), which is useful since no output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The field list is duplicated almost verbatim in the first two sentences ('client contact, address, description, estimated revenue and profit, notes and tasks' vs. 'the client contact, address, description, the optional estimated revenue, profit and budget, and its open tasks'), which is redundant. The auth note is a worthwhile final sentence, but a third of the text is repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by summarizing the returned fields and flagging the auth requirement, which is enough for an agent to call and interpret it. The one gap is no explicit pointer to the sibling list_leads as the way to obtain a valid lead_id elsewhere.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter lead_id is 100% documented in the schema ('Lead ID from list_leads'), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about the parameter and even repeats that a lead is returned by id. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (get) and resource (lead) and enumerates the payload: client contact, address, description, revenue/profit/budget, notes and tasks. It clarifies it returns one lead, implicitly distinguishing it from houzz-pro_list_leads, but never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a concrete usage condition: 'Use it before following up so your agent sees what is already planned.' That orients the agent toward a pre-follow-up read, but provides no exclusions or explicit alternative (e.g. when to use list_leads vs this).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.